Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under current regulations if either physical possession was taken through a memorandum or compensation was tendered under the prior legal framework; concluded acquisitions cannot be reopened for alleged procedural irregularities from previous decades.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. We may note, at the outset, that at the time when the issue pertaining to the scope of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’) was subject matter of consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129] and the decision of three judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [2014 (3) SCC 183] was holding the field, the present petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(A) Be pleased to allow this petition

(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order, or direction in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents authorities to set-aside and to struck down the Notification, declaration and award passed in L.A.Q. case No. 2/96 on dt. 14-06-2000 in respect of agricultural Land bearing survey No. 523/ Paikee of admeasuring 0-03-92 sq. mtr of acquired Land situate at Vill. Bhandariya Tal. Bhavnagar, Dist. Bhavnagar and also directed to the respondents for making the procedure for lapse of the Land Acquision proceeding initiated under the said award u/s 11 of the Act in LAQ case No 2/96 in respect of acquired Land in Question of petitioner in the interest of justice and in terms of section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013.

(C) During the pendency of this petition, be pleased to restrain the respondents authorities or any other Private agency to take the physical possession of the acquired Lands in Question from the Law full custody of the petitioner.

(D) Be pleased to grant other and further relief as deems fits and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra) has rendered a decision on 06.03.2020 overruling Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and all other decisions wherein Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed. The ratio of the decision in Indore Development Authority (supra) summarized in Paragraph No. ‘366’ reads as under:-

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence